Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Not So Fast: Prop 8 is Still California Law
breitbart.com ^ | 6/26/13 | Ken Klukowski

Posted on 06/27/2013 8:59:31 AM PDT by ColdOne

News reports that California's Prop 8 has been struck down as unconstitutional are completely false.

Proposition 8 is the amendment to the California Constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A federal trial judge--Vaughn Walker--held that Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case--the governor and attorney general of California--had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8's official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the the Ninth Circuit's decision.

But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: doma; homosexualagenda; notbreakingnews; prop8; scotusdoma; scotusprop8
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last
To: BuckeyeTexan

Does this mean the governor’s demand clerks (statewide) start issuing licenses for them to marry was an unlawful act by the governor? Would be great to see moonbeam in jail.


81 posted on 06/28/2013 9:33:58 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

So is Walker’s stay still in effect or does his ruling against Prop 8 take effect? And if stayed, the the moment the 9th doe what they were told - dismiss - then Walker is free to lift his stay (if it doesn’t automatically expire on its own).


82 posted on 06/28/2013 9:36:27 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

New York civil procedure has no bearing on CA or SCOTUS.


83 posted on 06/28/2013 9:36:45 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The article is wrong, since it cites a statute that precludes an ‘administrative agency’ from declaring any law unconstitutional.

Of course.

This is the expected law in every state with administrative agencies. They are not courts. They are under the executive branch.

If there is no timely appeal, the lower court decision is binding.


84 posted on 06/28/2013 9:37:41 AM PDT by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
The section of the CA Constitution that the author references refers to statutory law. The CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution. IANAL, but as I understand it, statutory law is subordinate to constitutional law. Since Prop 8 is not a statute but a constitutional amendment, the author’s premise is incorrect.

The author's conclusion is wrong, but not for the reason he states. Ordinarily, a decision of a federal district court, or a state trial court, is not binding precedent for other cases. It binds the parties, unless overturned on appeal, but if another case comes up between different parties, a trial-level court's decision is something the next court can consider, but it isn't bound by it. That's why the California Constitution says that the State can't ignore a state statute even if a district court judge said it was unconstitutional-- the state can, and should, defend the statute until the issue is decided by an appellate court.

This assumes that the State was not a party to the first case. If Plaintiff A sues Defendant B under California statute X, and a trial-level court (state or federal) throws the case out because it believes Statute X is unconstitutional, that decision binds no one but A and B, so the state can argue in another case that the statute is constitutional.

The Prop. 8 case is different because the state's officials were named as defendants, and the district court enjoined the Governor and Attorney General from enforcing Prop. 8. So the trial court's decision is now binding on the state because they were parties to the case, they were enjoined, and the appeal from that decision has been dismissed. So the Prop. 8 decision is not binding on anyone as precedent, but it is binding on the state because it was a party.

85 posted on 06/28/2013 10:05:18 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
So is Walker’s stay still in effect or does his ruling against Prop 8 take effect? And if stayed, the the moment the 9th doe what they were told - dismiss - then Walker is free to lift his stay (if it doesn’t automatically expire on its own).

Walker's stay is in effect until the 9th Circuit vacates its decision, as SCOTUS ordered it to do. The process of the decision formally coming down from SCOTUS to the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circuit formally acting on it will take about a month. Once that happens, the stay disappears automatically without a further order from the District Judge (which wouldn't be Walker anyway, because he retired).

86 posted on 06/28/2013 10:09:54 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Walker's stay is in effect until the 9th Circuit vacates its decision, as SCOTUS ordered it to do. The process of the decision formally coming down from SCOTUS to the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circuit formally acting on it will take about a month. Once that happens, the stay disappears automatically without a further order from the District Judge (which wouldn't be Walker anyway, because he retired).

And at that point, Prop 8 is officially unconstitutional and will remain so since the party with standing, the State of California, refuses to appeal. So any assertions of Prop 8 still being valid ignore that it is in a coma, fluids and food are being withheld, it sits in hospice, and has a month left to live at best.

87 posted on 06/28/2013 10:16:16 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded; Lurking Libertarian

Judge Walker temporarily stayed his ruling to allow Prop 8 supporters time to file an appeal. That stay expired on Friday, August 6, 2010. The 9th Circuit then stayed Walker’s ruling on August 16, 2010 pending the appeal being resolved in their jurisdiction. The 9th Circuit issued their decision on February 7, 2012. That ruling was stayed pending appeal to SCOTUS. Now that SCOTUS has ruled, I would guess that all stays have expired. IANAL though.

When I have time, I will go read the stays that were granted to see if I can give you a definitive answer. I’ll also ping my buddy for his opinion.


88 posted on 06/28/2013 10:43:06 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Ah, ha. I gotcha. Thanks.


89 posted on 06/28/2013 10:47:06 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded; Lurking Libertarian

Never mind! LL answered you. Thanks, LL.


90 posted on 06/28/2013 10:50:20 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals

I don’t know. See LL’s reply to NVA below about the stays expiring.


91 posted on 06/28/2013 10:52:10 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; Lurking Libertarian

thanks.


92 posted on 06/28/2013 10:55:05 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Unindicted Co-conspirators: The Mainstream Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

will do ...


93 posted on 06/28/2013 10:59:06 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing

The "proponent/intervenor" lost me. Who lacked standing the proponents or opponents of Prop 8 and if the appeal is dismissed, doesn't that take it back to the district court that ruled agaisnt Prop 8?

94 posted on 06/28/2013 11:08:59 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

On threads like this, sometimes I wish only attorneys were allowed to post. ;)


95 posted on 06/28/2013 11:10:11 AM PDT by mikemoose (Pray for the Unborn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Who were the plaintiff's and the defendants of the case that was heard in the US district court with the homosexual judge (that subsequently ruled CA prop 8 was unconstitutional)?

If it was the same plaintiff as the case that went before SCOTUS recently...then the issue of standing should be the same with the US district court. In other words, the district court should have tossed the case for lack of standing, instead of reaching a decision.

96 posted on 06/28/2013 11:12:38 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The Prop 8 proponents were legally referred to as the defendant-intervenor because they intervened in the CA Supreme Court case to defend the State’s interests because they feared that the State officials would not adequately defend Prop 8. (They were right.) When Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, the State of CA refused to appeal to the 9th Circuit. So Prop 8 proponents (intervenors) did so. SCOTUS ruled that they lacked standing to appeal. So, yes, Walker’s ruling (District Court) stands.


97 posted on 06/28/2013 11:21:52 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

See my post at #76. I’ve detailed that for you.


98 posted on 06/28/2013 11:23:36 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative; DannyTN
"However I do think California can hold their own officials in violation of the California constitution if they honor the District Court’s order and don’t get an appellate decision.

No they can't. Under the author's reading of the CA Constitution, the current situation is:

1. California officials may not enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the Federal Constitution (per the District Court's decision); but, 2. California officials must enforce Prop 8, pursuant to the California Constitution

California officials, therefore, face directly conflicting obligations under the California and Federal Constitutions. Under the Supremacy Clause, the answer is quite clear - where an official's obligations under a state law or Constitution conflict with the Federal Constitution, the Federal constitution wins out. You can't sue (well, you can sue, but won't win) to force a state official to take an action inconsistent with the Federal constitution.

======================================================

Does the US Constitution saying anything about the right to marry?

The laws regarding marriage licences vary from state to state.

Currently, gays married in CA, may in fact not be recognized as married in TX (for example).

The states (currently) have discretion to some degree.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I can see how the feds would say DOMA is unconstitutional (because it involves fed distributed (tax payer) money, etc), but how can the feds (US disctrict court) say CA has no right to define marriage in their state?

99 posted on 06/28/2013 11:28:31 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: spawn44

Ubama and the homosexuals squealed with joy like schoolgirls when they thought the Supreme Court had declared homosexual “marriage” a Constitutional right. Turns out the turd pokers still have some work to do.


100 posted on 06/28/2013 11:33:07 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson